Faith is wrong.

[Eyada]

First, for anyone unfamiliar with it:

The Cogito.

Descartes' famous necessary truth; the one foundational belief that cannot ever be doubted.

With that out of the way, on to the argument:

1. Cogito ergo sum.
2. Faith can be used to assert: NOT(Cogito ergo sum).
3. NOT(Cogito ergo sum) is impossible; it is necessarily false.
4. Therefore, Faith asserts something that is necessarily, undeniably false.
5. Therefore, Faith is invalid.

Basically, Faith is incompatible with the Cogito; one of them has to give. Since the Cogito is necessarily true and cannot possibly be false, it follows that Faith is wrong.

This is not necessarily proof for any other epistemological system, it is merely a demonstration of the falsity of Faith as a method for finding truth. In other words, this argument does not necessarily provide support for rationalist or empiricist epistemologies, but it does let us know one very important thing: Whatever the correct method for finding truth may be, it is not Faith.

 

[Sieguest]

First, for anyone unfamiliar with it:

The Cogito.

Descartes' famous necessary truth; the one foundational belief that cannot ever be doubted.

"I am, I exist"

With that out of the way, on to the argument:

1. Cogito ergo sum.

"I think therefore I am."

2. Faith can be used to assert: NOT(Cogito ergo sum).
3. NOT(Cogito ergo sum) is impossible; it is necessarily false.

I don't see how you find Cogito ergo sum to be false. To think is to have the ability to be deceived, the only way you are deceived is by being, and by being, you exist. Also, the cogito is descarte's omission of the word "ergo" and stating that the proposition of "I am, I exist" is true when conceived in his mind. So take a look at the the phrase without the word ergo

Cogito sum

In English this literally means, "I am thinking." and in his assertion in "the cogito" backs this up.

In this case, his avoidance of the word "ergo" actually complements it's use in Cogito ergo sum, following a logical chain. So there is no conflict between the two, both lead to the same truth.

4. Therefore, Faith asserts something that is necessarily, undeniably false.
5. Therefore, Faith is invalid.


Basically, Faith is incompatible with the Cogito; one of them has to give. Since the Cogito is necessarily true and cannot possibly be false, it follows that Faith is wrong.

This is not necessarily proof for any other epistemological system, it is merely a demonstration of the falsity of Faith as a method for finding truth. In other words, this argument does not necessarily provide support for rationalist or empiricist epistemologies, but it does let us know one very important thing: Whatever the correct method for finding truth may be, it is not Faith.

Using the above logic, these assertions are false.

I know this thread is somewhat old, but it has no posts and I'm looking to spark a little something.

 

[GwJ]

Like the above said, faith doesn't contradict the cogito.

The ability to be deceived follows that you think, therefore you are.

 

[Sucumbio]

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

OT: Your argument hinges on "2. Faith can be used to assert: NOT(Cogito ergo sum)." A demonstration of this would be good as it's central to your thesis. Also "can be used" does not equal "is used." Whereas on the other side of your equation, there is the absolute, on the faith side, it's conditional, so this will need to be better defined in order to play out properly when put to a logical test.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This is not necessarily proof for any other epistemological system, it is merely a demonstration of the falsity of Faith as a method for finding truth. In other words, this argument does not necessarily provide support for rationalist or empiricist epistemologies, but it does let us know one very important thing: Whatever the correct method for finding truth may be, it is not Faith.

Well, that's all well and good, but how does this show faith is always incorrect? Just because faith can give a wrong answer, doesn't necessarily mean that it is always incorrect. All you seem to show, is that faith is wrong, when it is, well wrong.

I would personally attack the nature of faith instead.

 

[Aesir]

Might want to change your word usage.

You could argue blind faith is incorrect.


For instance God exists. Is a statement which claims that a god exists, this is a statement based on blind faith. However statements like; The sun will rise tomorrow. are statements that are based on faith, but faith backed by evidence.

Not all faith is "wrong" as you put it, faith is a wager, some wagers are higher risks than others.

 

[Chaco]

Actually Aesir, your example of the sun rising cannot be applied here. In the defined forms of Faith, the one which you aim for in your example has always been clearly outlined always that faith relies on no evidence. The previous days that the sun rose and set provide ample evidence, which nullifies the use of faith in this context.

 

[Dre89]

Belief in God isn't always blind faith though, because some people have reason to believe it. Claiming it is always blind faith is just straw manning the argument.

Also, the definition if faith is vague. Virtually every assertion requires faith, even in the instance of the sun rising, there is no guarantee that it will rise the next day. It is only probable to a certain extent, so you then have to define how probable an event must be for one to be justified in having faith that it will happen.

Just my two cents.